Monday, 10 July 2017

Cultural Appropriation vs. Cultural Exploration

Cultural
Appropriation vs. Cultural Exploration

Recently
(June 2017) I read The Autograph Man,
a 2002 novel by Zadie Smith. She is the daughter of a Caribbean mother and an
English father, who often writes about “multicultural” issues of various kinds.
The protagonist of The Autograph Man
is Jewish, son of a non-Jewish Chinese father and a Jewish mother (presumably
of European descent). His friends are an
African-American Jew and two “white” Jews.

The
novel is full of rather learned, if not arcane, references to things Jewish, especially
the Talmud and the Kabbalah, so much so that I wondered if Smith were Jewish. Apparently
she is not, and apparently there was a debate at its time of publication about
whether The Autograph Man was a case
of cultural appropriation. Perhaps only Jews should be permitted to write funny
novels about Jews, incorporating religious references along the way.

About
the same time as I reads Zadie Smith’s book, I read Alexander McCall Smith’s The Minor Adjustment Beauty Salon, one of
his series of novels about Precious Ramotswe, the founder of the No. 1 Ladies’
Detective Agency in Gaborone, the capital of Botswana. McCall Smith is a white
man, an eminent professor of medical law, born in 1948 in what is now Zimbabwe.
Precious Ramotswe is a much beloved fictional character, a “traditionally built”
middle-aged African lady of tremendous human warmth, perspicacity and kindness.
I wondered if anyone had ever accused McCall Smith of cultural appropriation,
or whether, perhaps, at least some Botswanans are pleased that so many people
are reading about their peaceful, well-governed country, sadly still a rarity
in Africa.

While
reading these novels I thought about a quite acrimonious debate that’s been
occurring in Canada lately, about whether white (or indeed non-white) “settler”
Canadians should “appropriate” the culture of indigenous Canadians. In this
debate, anyone who is not indigenous is a settler who has participated in the
theft of indigenous lands, regardless of how recently he or she may have come
to Canada. The question is whether people who are not indigenous, or who have
only partial and remote indigenous ancestry, should write novels about
indigenous people. One of the people
caught up in this debate is the novelist Joseph Boyden, who has been accused of
mis-representing himself as indigenous while writing novels about indigenous
Canadians. Apparently he is of mixed
ancestry, and was interested in exploring that part of his ancestry that was
indigenous.

Several
Canadians of European ancestry have been caught up in this, according to
various newspaper reports I’ve read. An artist named Amanda PL (yes, that’s
correct) was going to exhibit at Visions Gallery in Toronto, but then people
started noticing her paintings’ strong resemblance to those of Norval
Morrisseau, an indigenous artist. Perhaps she thought her paintings were an
homage to Morrisseau, or perhaps she was merely exploring indigenous art, but
she was accused of cultural appropriation. The gallery cancelled her exhibit.

Hal
Niedzviecki was the editor of a small literary magazine called Write, a quarterly published by the
Writers’ Union of Canada. He edited a
special issue of works by indigenous writers, but in the same issue he wrote an
editorial defending non-indigenous writers’ right to engage in “cultural appropriation”
by writing about indigenous characters. In fact, he even went so far as to
propose, presumably tongue-in-cheek, an “appropriation prize.” Several non-indigenous
Canadians tweeted their support for the prize (undoubtedly a stupid thing to
do: irony does not play out well on Twitter).

Then
Jonathan Kay, Editor of The Walrus magazine,
Canada’s answer to The Atlantic or The New Yorker, resigned, apparently in
response to social media criticism. Kay’s sin was to write an article in The National Post, a conservative
Canadian newspaper, defending the right to debate the question of cultural
appropriation.

One
question I asked myself when reading accounts of these debates was whether the
resignations constituted censorship. Many literary magazines in Canada receive
subsidies from various levels of government, as does The Walrus, and I wondered whether governments had some responsibility
to protect the freedom of speech of editors and contributors. Probably they did
not, as long as Niedzviecki and Kay resigned voluntarily.

On
the other hand, I worry about the arts and academic atmosphere in Canada. I
suspect that some individuals who adjudicate grant applications believe that
you should not write about cultures other than your own. Some people also think
that you shouldn’t be involved in indigenous affairs if you are not indigenous
yourself, even if you are trying to help them, as a couple of my white students
and colleagues have discovered over the years.

So
where does this leave me on the debate about cultural appropriation? I enjoyed
both The Autograph Man and The Minor Adjustment Beauty Salon. I
think Zadie Smith had every right to explore Jewish liturgy and lore and create
funny Jewish characters, whether or not she is Jewish. I also think Alexander
McCall Smith should continue writing his books about Botswana.

And
I think Canadians of all ancestries should be permitted to explore indigenous
history and culture. Some may do so in ways that are insensitive or offensive
and if so, their critics will have every right to say so. Similarly, if artwork
is bad or derivative, critics can say so. But other writers and artists may be
able to imagine the lives of indigenous people in ways that are sensitive,
enlightened, and even contribute to the remediation of the grievous ills that indigenous
people in Canada have suffered over the centuries. This is cultural
exploration, a common way for writers and artists to explore—often with
sympathy and grace—the lives of people unlike themselves.

It
was foolish at best, disrespectful at worst, to propose a cultural appropriation
prize. A little civility goes a long way. On the other hand, I have very little
respect for those who countenance censorship by social media. Freedom of speech
and expression are important human rights, and they are so with good reason. No
one should be allowed to stop anyone from expressing himself solely on account
of his real or presumed racial, ethnic, or any other identity.

About Me

Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann is Canada Research Chair in International Human Rights, holding a joint appointment in the Department of Global Studies and the Balsillie School of International Affairs at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Canada. She is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. In 2006 the Human Rights section of the American Political Science Association named Dr. Howard-Hassmann its first Distinguished Scholar of Human Rights.Since arriving at Laurier in 2003 she has published Compassionate Canadians: Civic Leaders Discuss Human Rights (2003), Reparations to Africa (2008) and Can Globalization Promote Human Rights? (2010), and has also co-edited Economic Rights in Canada and the United States (2006) and The Age of Apology (2008). She established and maintains a website on political apologies, which can be visited at political-apologies.wlu.ca.